The Missouri Bar has announced their recommendation that St. Louis County Associate Circuit Judge Judy Preddy Draper not be retained in the upcoming election. She is only the third judge to receive this recommendation since 1940.

On the Bar’s website, their outline of her ratings includes the dubious distinction that Judge Draper was rated at a 3.00 or lower (out of a possible 5.00) in 16 of 18 categories. According to the same document, “any rating below 3.00 indicates a need for improvement” – essentially, she failed in all but two categories. Among her lowest scores were a 1.83 for legal competency and 1.97 for her understanding of procedural and evidential rules.

“While we agree Judge Draper should not be retained and applaud the Missouri Bar for recognizing that she is a poor judge, it is clear that the Missouri Plan is flawed. The last time Judge Draper was up for a retention election, only 27.5% of those surveyed recommend she be retained. She was still retained by a landslide. Now, she has scored even lower. Unfortunately, our ineffective court plan may mean she is retained again,” said James Harris of Better Courts for Missouri.

Years of trial lawyer control have done massive damage to our state’s tort system, putting our courts among the worst in the nation according to the Pacific Research Institute’s 2010 Tort Liability Index. PRI rates our state 45th in the nation for tort liability, just two spots above our notoriously corrupt neighbor to the east, Illinois. The only respectable score Missouri received was for our state’s cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases.

Unfortunately, even our tort reform laws – our state’s only bright spot in the PRI survey – are in danger if we continue to let trial attorneys have so much control over our courts. Attorneys have a vested interest in doing away with tort reform, as without caps they could expect to win millions of dollars from cases that would otherwise be capped at a reasonable amount.

To reverse the trend towards activism and pro-plaintiff courts, we must initiate real change in our judicial selection process. We have to bring openness and accountability to the system in order to reduce the influence of trial attorneys and other liberal special interest groups. Only by giving the people more control over the judicial selection process can we hope to turn our courts around.

The U.S. Senate has confirmed Elena Kagan’s appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court as the newest associate justice. By confirming a known supporter of judicial activism, the liberals who control our nation’s Senate have ensured that our Supreme Court remains prone to decisions that twist the meaning of our Constitution and overstep the bounds of the court.

Clearly, this is the liberals’ plan to ensure that our nation continues to bend to their will. President Obama has now had the opportunity to appoint two Supreme Court justices, and both have been liberal activists that have pushed our court further to the left.

Missouri’s Senators had an opportunity to stand up for common sense Missouri values, but they were split on the vote, with Senator Bond voting against Kagan’s confirmation and Senator McCaskill voting for her confirmation.

Senators Claire McCaskill and Kit Bond have an opportunity to endorse judicial restraint by voting NO when asked to confirm Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Will they take this opportunity, or will they allow another judicial activist to be appointed to our highest court?

Elena Kagan has a record of supporting judicial activism that reaches back to her time as a law clerk for renowned judicial activist Justice Thurgood Marshall. Rather than interpreting the constitution as a concrete document, she has expressed her opinion that it is a “living document,” opening the door for activist legal interpretations.

Furthermore, it has been revealed she looks to a controversial former Israeli Supreme Court justice, Judge Aharon Barak, as a “judicial hero.” Why is this a concern? Judge Barak helped to transform Israel’s Supreme Court by drastically expanding its powers and embracing the doctrine of “comparative law” – letting international legal decisions influence domestic legal interpretation. Understandably, her admiration for such an undeniably activist and international-minded jurist has many worried about her possible impact on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Better Courts for Missouri urges Senators McCaskill and Bond to vote NO on confirming Elena Kagan’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Missouri Law Review devoted their entire summer volume to a symposium on the Missouri Plan. One piece by Stephen J. Ware, entitled The Missouri Plan in National Perspective, was particularly striking. Ranking the judicial selection systems of the fifty states on a continuum from most populist to most elitist, he found the Missouri Plan was the most elitist and most undemocratic way to select judges.

Ware finds that allowing an appointed commission to have so much power in the judicial selection process, particularly a commission in which the lawyer members are chosen by the Bar rather than by elected officials, violates some of the most basic principles of democracy by giving a small segment of the population – in this case, members of the bar – more influence than the average person. Furthermore, by not requiring Senate confirmation and not offering elected officials any choice other than the panel presented by the commission, Ware finds that “the Missouri Plan gives the commission more power to force one of its favorites on the democratically elected officials” (Page 760). Should a commission in which 3 of 7 members are elected directly by the Bar, with no input from elected officials or the average citizen, have such broad powers in a democracy? These commissioners are accountable to nobody except for those in the Bar’s narrow constituency. How can they be expected to represent all of the people of Missouri when they are only held accountable by a select few?

Quite simply, they can’t. Undemocratic flaws make our current version of the Missouri Plan unresponsive to the needs of the people and prone to corruption. Fortunately, simple reforms to increase openness and accountability can make our system better and give us a stronger, more democratic judiciary.

Better Courts for Missouri encourages you to read Ware’s piece and ask yourself: Is our version of the Missouri Plan, one of the least citizen-oriented in the nation, really serving us as well as it should? The answer you find will undoubtedly be no.

The latest victory for greedy trial lawyers has come just next door to Missouri in Illinois, where the state Supreme Court has ruled that a cap on non-economic damages that became law in 2005 is unconstitutional. They ruled that the cap was an infringement of the separation of powers, that it amounted to a “legislative remittitur” that interfered with the judiciary’s traditional power to determine the damages to be awarded in a case, and that such an infringement would invalidate the law in its entirety.

This is a bad decision that will cause doctors to leave Illinois and will cause patients to pay higher prices for the care they receive because protection from junk lawsuits has been eliminated. Junk lawsuits have been estimated to increase health care costs by 10% and are a major motivation for physicians who choose to retire or move their practice to avoid harsh legal climates.

For more information, please read the verdict, available here.

Today, the Missouri Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Klotz v. St. Anthony’s, a case which challenges the constitutionality of the non-economic damage caps that are a part of our state’s comprehensive tort reform laws. In this case, a jury originally awarded an amount for non-economic damages that exceeded the $350,000 cap. In order to comply with state law, the court granted a motion to cut damages to $350,000. The verdict was appealed and is now before the Missouri Supreme Court.

“I hope that the court will practice judicial restraint and uphold the caps on non-economic damages,” said James Harris. “Without caps, dishonest attorneys would have an incentive to file more frivolous lawsuits, raising malpractice insurance prices, causing an exodus of doctors and raising the price of health care for everyone. Our tort reform laws are constitutional and sensible – to overturn them would be destructive and irresponsible.”

The following was printed in the Springfield News-Leader on January 1, 2010, and can be found on their website.

The fate of tort reform is now in the hands of the Missouri Supreme Court. Oral arguments in Klotz v. St. Anthony's are set for Jan. 14 , and tort reform opponents are champing at the bit for the chance to take down our state's barrier to ridiculously high non-economic damage awards. Indeed, the repeal of tort reform laws by lawyer-influenced courts has become a disturbing national pattern - approximately 138 tort reform statutes have been overturned, according to the American Tort Reform Association.

Trial lawyers, with the ability to manipulate Missouri's courts, have undoubtedly been working to make sure our judges are predisposed to rule against tort statutes that limit non-economic damages and discourage frivolous lawsuits. After all, Missouri's tort reform laws are the only thing keeping them from collecting the kind of multi-million dollar "pain and suffering" verdicts that have bought jets and mansions for lawyers in other states.

There is reason to be worried that our state could soon find itself without protection from these costly lawsuits. In Meyer ex. rel. Coplin v. Fluor Corp., the Missouri Supreme Court found that a company was responsible for paying the costs of medical monitoring for a possible future illness, a break with precedent (and common sense) that historically dictated that damages could only be recovered if the plaintiff has a demonstrable injury. It is not a stretch to imagine that a court willing to play so fast and loose with standard tort procedure would happily overturn reform statutes if given a chance.

The overturning of our current tort reform laws would threaten Missouri's ability to create economic growth. Right now, having tort reform laws on the books puts us at a comparative advantage with other states and other nations when competing for new industries. The loss of these laws would put us at a disadvantage, discouraging companies from creating new jobs in Missouri which could be created more cheaply in other states.

The economic impact of the loss of tort reform should not be underestimated: it would be absolutely devastating to our economy. The high insurance rates and other costs that plagued this state before tort reform was enacted would return and once again hamstring our economy. Medical malpractice insurance rates would skyrocket, causing doctors to leave the state in waves as they were doing before Missouri's tort reform laws were put in place. Workers compensation and health insurance premiums would rise in response to the increased cost of health care. Not only would the cost of doing business increase in Missouri, overturning tort reform would have a ripple effect that would increase the cost of living in Missouri.

I urge the people of Missouri to write your legislators to let them know that tort reform is in danger. We can only hope that the courts will respect Missouri's best interests when making this decision and let our tort limits stand. Unfortunately, it is out of our hands now.

The Missouri Supreme Court has taken a small step to increase the transparency of the judicial selection process by implementing a new court rule that will allow the release of the names of all applicants who are interviewed for any judicial opening. In the past, they have released only the names of the three applicants who were selected for presentation to the governor.

While this is a good first step, it is not the only change that needs to be made. Knowing who has been interviewed will help citizens see if the commission is passing over more-qualified people for political cronies, but there will still be no method for accountability. Even if the actions of the commission are demonstrably reprehensible, there will be little that citizens can do to deter such actions in the future.

Transparency is important, but it will do nothing without introducing some method of accountability – whether more citizen input on the commission, legislative approval, or elections.

You can read more about the decision in an Associated Press story here.

Legislation has been pre-filed in the Missouri Senate aimed at reforming Missouri’s judicial selection process. The bill would allow voters to cast their ballots on an amendment to replace the flawed Missouri Plan with a selection system modeled on the federal system, which has worked for our nation for over two centuries. Under the plan, the governor would make judicial appointments which would then be subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. The retention elections that are in place under the current plan would remain in place, as well as a retention election after an appointed judge has been in office for ten years.

Momentum has been building behind the judicial selection reform movement after passage of a similar measure in the House last year and the approval of two initiative petitions aimed at replacing the “Missouri Plan” with a system that will provide our state with quality judges while eliminating the harmful influence of special interest groups.

Founding figures like John Adams and Thomas Paine would be appalled to see the destruction that these special interests have wrought. The passage of a plan to reform our judicial selection process would ensure that greedy ambulance chasers who want to bastardize our justice system to enrich themselves are no longer allowed to shape the judiciary. With the accountability measures of the federal plan combined with the retention elections of the Missouri Plan, the people can once again be in the driver’s seat of government and ensure that our courts work for the best interests of the state, not just for the narrow interests of a privileged few.

In 2010, there will undoubtedly be more progress in the effort to reform Missouri’s judicial selection process. We urge you to let your voices be heard and tell your legislators that judicial selection reform must be passed immediately.

Parties have until November 5 to file briefs in Klotz v. St. Anthony’s, a case which challenges the constitutionality of damage caps in Missouri’s tort reform laws (you can read the appellants' brief here). The case will be heard before the Missouri Supreme Court soon and the briefs that are submitted could play a big part in determining the outcome of the case.

Already, several prominent personal injury lawyers and left-of-center interest groups have weighed in by submitting their own amicus briefs urging the court to make an activist decision and strike down tort reform. More troubling, our highest courts have been under the influence of legal industry special interest groups for years and these groups want nothing more than to take down our tort reform laws. In state after state, personal injury attorneys have encouraged courts to strike down laws for their own financial benefit, and in many of these states courts have obliged.

Nationwide, over 140 tort reform statutes have been thrown out by courts under the influence of legal industry special interests. We cannot afford for Missouri’s laws to become yet another casualty of lawyer-controlled courts. Better Courts for Missouri urges you to call your state legislators and make sure they are aware of this challenge to tort reform.

Better Courts for Missouri suggests that all who are interested in how trial lawyer influence shapes our courts should read "The Rule of Lawyers: How the New Litigation Elite Threatens America's Rule of Law" by Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. The book, which can be found here, is an interesting examination of the impact that class-action lawyers have had on our judicial system. By using the courts to strike down or re-write the law without public input, they pass over our elected representatives and voters, undermining the proper function of government.

With all of the chaos surrounding the national health care debate, it is unfortunate that our nation’s leaders have forgotten the importance of protecting tort reform – an important way to drive down the cost of health care for everyone. Tort reform statutes are in danger nationwide as trial lawyers use their influence over the judiciary to have caps on lawsuit damages thrown out. Now, they are fighting to avoid one of the most serious potential obstacles to their profession – a national tort reform law.

As Fred Barnes pointed out in an interesting article for The Weekly Standard (found here), the lack of tort reform costs Americans billions of dollars every year, making tort reform an indispensable part of any attempt to reform our nation’s health care system. Bill Bradley, former Democratic Senator from New Jersey, wrote in a New York Times editorial that tort reform should be coupled with the current health care bill to make it more palatable for all involved. Unfortunately, Barnes found the reason why Congressional liberals haven’t brought up tort reform as an option during this debate – trial attorneys are using their influence to block the progress of national tort reform, choosing to line their pockets at our expense rather than allow legal reforms that would reduce cost of care for everyone in this nation.

Better Courts for Missouri urges you to call your Congressional representatives and Missouri’s Senators to urge them to pass national tort reform laws as part of any health care legislation. The advocacy group Sick of Lawsuits, citing a 2006 study by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, has found that the price of lawsuits and defensive medicine practiced solely to avoid lawsuits accounts for ten cents of every dollar spent on health care in this country. We lose billions annually in extraneous costs that could be curbed if our nation’s health care professionals were allowed to practice medicine without the constant threat of frivolous litigation. Our nation’s leaders need to put our needs before the wishes of the powerful trial attorney lobby and enact tort reform legislation to protect our courts and our wallets from abuse. This is a real way to reduce unneeded litigation and reduce the cost of care.

Recently, the Wall Street Journal published an article, “Fraud by Trial Lawyers Taints Wave of Pesticide Lawsuits” (which can be found here), about fraud in recent pesticide-related cases. U.S. trial attorneys, smelling profits in the wind, swept into South America to exploit plaintiff-friendly courts and make millions on suits against produce companies accused of knowingly exposing workers to harmful pesticides. Of course, it wasn’t enough for them to find people who were really hurt. Finding it incredibly easy to win huge sums of money, they initiated fraudulent lawsuits on behalf of people who had not worked near these pesticides, faked medical results for people who had worked near the pesticide, and kept exploiting the legal system to take as much money as they could. This is a clear example of how the culture of greed in the trial attorney community results in courts being treated like slot machines. Courts should be about justice, not about a pay day.

Our nation needs more Supreme Court justices who interpret the Constitution as it is written and judge with neutrality in mind, not ideology. Please call US Senator Kit Bond at (202) 224-5721 and US Senator Claire McCaskill at (202)-224-6154 to tell them to vote NO on Judge Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court.

The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Caperton case makes it clear how important a fair and impartial judiciary is to the correct operation of our justice system. In Caperton v. Massey, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a judge must recuse themselves if it is reasonable to suspect that they have a particular interest in the outcome of a case – an interest that, if not leading directly to a bias, could reasonably make one suspicious of a bias.

Better Courts for Missouri is very interested in how this ruling might apply to a potential court hearing involving judicial selection reform-related ballot language. This year, judges were actively calling lawmakers and employees of the court were working with trial attorneys to block judicial selection reform. How can Missourians reasonably expect a fair and impartial hearing on judicial selection reform if the presiding judges were actively lobbying against it? Obviously, this is the kind of situation that the Supreme Court was looking to avoid when authoring the Caperton decision – a situation wherein public trust of the courts is lost as politics become central to a judgment. Will those justices who lobbied against judicial selection reform legislation recuse themselves if ballot language comes before the court? Surely, we cannot expect a fair and impartial hearing if they do not. Time will tell.

While neither of the judicial selection reform bills proposed during this legislative session succeeded in passing through both houses of the legislature and onto the ballot, the effort represented progress and is by no means over. Legislation of this scope can often take several attempts to pass, and the judicial selection reform movement is moving very quickly compared to many other legislative efforts. HJR10, the house version of the judicial selection reform bill, passed the House with a bi-partisan vote and was presented to the Senate during only its second year as a legislative proposal, seeing some vigorous and constructive debate but ultimately no vote as it was pushed aside during the legislative logjam that has become a hallmark of the end of session in the Senate.

Such progress is not to be taken lightly. Only a small fraction of bills ever make it past the House, and even fewer ever see the light of day in the Senate. For judicial reform to make it as far as it did in only its second year is a major accomplishment, and is a sign that reform is close at hand.

Better Courts for Missouri is busily working on the future of judicial selection reform, gearing up for next year’s effort to take back our courts from the special interests that currently control the selection process. The progress that was made this year shows that judicial selection reform is an issue that our legislators know they need to act on; with more floor time and a renewed effort next year, reform can become a reality. Passage of responsible reform is within sight, and we will work to make sure that it is a top legislative priority next year. In addition to our legislative plan, we will prepare to begin an initiative petition to bypass special interests and go directly to the people for a vote on reform.

We would like to give special thanks to Representative Stanley Cox, Speaker Ron Richard, Senator Jim Lembke, Senator Brad Lager, and Representative Steve Tilley for their hard work in advancing the cause of judicial selection reform during this session. Their help was indispensable.

Next year, look for a renewed, reinvigorated judicial selection reform effort as Better Courts for Missouri continues to advocate for transparency and accountability in the judicial selection process. Missourians deserve better than the current system can offer. We hope you will join us as we work toward a solution that will give us better courts and ensure that our judicial selection process is no longer dominated by cronyism or back-room deals with destructive special interest groups. With your help, we can make sure our courts’ primary concern is the best interests of Missourians, not the whims of the elite.

On page A12 of the April 18, 2009, issue, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial covering the effort for judicial selection reform in Missouri.

The editorial, entitled "Missouri Brakes - The Sue Me State Reconsiders Judicial Selection," says that the current system has "given disproportionate influence to lawyers groups," a situation that could be fixed by reforms that "would bring more transparency and reduce the power of the trial lawyers while expanding the range of candidates presented to the governor." Our state's courts are in trouble, but Missourians have the power to make them better.

You can read the full article here.

Today, judicial selection reform reached another major milestone. With a bi-partisan vote, the Missouri House gave final approval to House Joint Resolution 10, which will now be sent to the Senate for their approval before being placed on the ballot.

Better Courts for Missouri thanks House leadership for their dedication to reform and their swift passage of this bill.

You can read the full press release here.

House Joint Resolution 10 was voted perfected and printed after debate on the floor of the Missouri House of Representatives today. This is a major milestone for this important legislation, and Better Courts for Missouri applauds House leadership for encouraging its passage.

You can read the full press release here.

Senate Joint Resolution 9, which proposes a constitutional amendment to enact reforms in our state's judicial nomination process, has been approved by the Missouri Senate's Governmental Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee. We applaud the committee's expediency in approving this needed legislation.

You can read the full press release here.

Today, James Harris, Executive Director of Better Courts for Missouri, joined several renowned legal experts, attorneys, and grassroots activists in testifying before the Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee, speaking in support of SJR 9 and the need for reform in our judicial selection process.

For the full press release, please click here.

In a speech given at the University of Missouri School of Law on Friday, February 27, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voiced her support for “a little bit of perfecting” to the Missouri plan, including increased transparency in the judicial selection process and decreasing the influence of lawyers on the selection commission by possibly increasing the amount of lay members, saying, "While I favor a merit selection system, that has become synonymous with Missouri, it's important to remember that its value relies entirely on the premise of diminishing the politics in judicial selection, so if it fails to do that, maybe it fails on its first principles."

We applaud Supreme Court Justice O’Connor’s stand for transparency and a trustworthy commission, and urge Missourians to call for these needed reforms. You can read the full press release here and read several articles regarding her speech on our news page.

Both SJR 9 and HJR 10 are moving steadily forward after being assigned to committees, an essential step in putting judicial reform on the ballot. SJR 9 has been assigned to the Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee and HJR 10 has been assigned to the Special Standing Committee on General Laws, with hearings soon to be scheduled.

We applaud legislative leadership for their expediency in assuring that this needed legislation is acted upon.

Senator Jim Lembke and Senator Jane Cunningham have introduced Senate Joint Resolution 9, which, if passed, will allow Missourians to vote on reforming Missouri’s judicial selection process. You can read the full bill text here or a summary here.

The addition of SJR 9 means both houses of the legislature now have reform legislation working through the system. Please call your local legislators and tell them to support these two important pieces of legislation.

Representative Stanley Cox has filed HJR 10, which, if passed, will put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to reform our state’s nominating process by increasing transparency and weakening the influence of special interests on the nominating commission. You can read the full bill text here or a summary here.

Missourians deserve a better, more transparent appellate judicial nomination process. Please call your local legislator and tell them to support HJR 10.

In New York, Governor David Paterson, a Democrat, is calling for reforms to his state’s judicial nominating process, which operates similarly to Missouri’s, after receiving an unsatisfactory lineup of nominees for the post of Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. The commission chose a panel devoid of diversity: all seven of the nominees put forth by the committee were male, while the retiring judge being replaced was the first female to ever serve as Chief Judge. A New York Times article from January 14, 2009 (which can be found here) quoted Paterson as saying, "Though I am thrilled to choose Judge Lippman to serve as our next chief judge, I firmly believe that we must revise the process for future judicial nominations to ensure that those under consideration represent all New Yorkers.”

The New York experience points out yet another shortcoming of many iterations of the Missouri Plan: a committee devoid of any accountability mechanism is free, without fear of reprisal, to choose a panel that does not necessarily represent or serve the needs of the state. A simple solution to this problem is to allow for more transparency in the nominating process. Unfortunately, the interests that dominate Missouri’s nominating committee refuse to open up the committee’s activities, continuing to operate behind closed doors despite public calls for transparency.

A system without some form of public accountability for the nominating committee is not conducive to good government. Special interests or corrupt individuals can dominate the nominating process, advancing certain judges to serve their own needs while passing over many qualified jurists for superficial or political reasons. New York’s governor is taking a step in the right direction by calling for reform. Missouri’s government needs to do the same this year. The calls for reform are non-partisan; unfortunately, our courts are not, no matter what the Bar says. Missourians deserve a fair, responsible nominating process that won’t allow special interests to have undue influence over the composition of our courts.

Please sign your name to this petition and pass it along to other Missourians.

Let our leaders know you do not support the lawyer-dominated Missouri Plan's secrecy and lack of accountability.

This past Saturday, the Wall Street Journal wrote an editorial (which can be found here) in response to many comments that had been received regarding the American Bar Association’s recent decision to endorse the expanded use of “merit selection” plans in states and a similar plan to be used at the national level. In this editorial, they pointed to the difficulties that Missouri’s supposed “merit” plan has caused, specifically that lawyers have used the lack of public accountability for the Appellate Judicial Commission to force the Governor to choose a judge of their choice.

Not only have trial attorneys abused the system to force judges into the Missouri Supreme Court, they have used the “non-partisan” and “merit-oriented” nature of the system (as it was originally envisioned) as a shield every time they have been attacked for their actions and every time that the people call for reform. What these attorneys won’t admit is that the Missouri Plan is no longer non-partisan and it is no longer a system for choosing judges by merit. Trial attorneys ruined that long ago when they began to use the system for their own personal gain and to advance their own political agenda.

Missouri needs reform. The Missouri Plan doesn’t work, and a national version of a “merit selection” plan would only expand the corruption that already exists. The people of this state deserve a transparent process with some measure of accountability for bad decisions or corrupt actions in order to keep trial attorneys and interest groups from hand-picking judges behind citizens’ backs. We need a judiciary we can have confidence in, one that knows when to call a ball and when to call a strike.

The time to make important improvements to the Missouri Plan for selecting judges is NOW. Please Get Involved and restore checks and balances in Missouri.

Go here to sign our simple online petition.

And be sure to use this handy form to send your legislators a letter.

Please sign your name to this petition and pass it along to other Missourians. Let legislators know it is time to fix the way judges are picked in Missouri.

According to This AP story regarding judicial selection reform, the Missouri Bar's lobbyist believes our efforts are "a solution in search of a problem."

Unfortunately, the facts are against him.

PROBLEM: Seventeen of the last eighteen nominees to the Supreme Court have come from one major party.

Non-partisan?

PROBLEM: One of the nominees to replace Judge White on the Supreme Court had THE lowest Bar Rating of any appellate or Supreme Court Judge in the 2006 retention election.

Merit?

PROBLEM: Though they represent less than 10% of the legal profession, the elite trial lawyers of MATA have had overwhelming influence on the Appellate Judicial Commission, the commission that selects judges. (Currently, ALL of the lawyer-members of the Commission are either MATA leaders or active with the organization.) No organization in the state of Missouri has a more direct financial interest in appointing judges.

Accountable?

PROBLEM: The current process is conducted in absolute secrecy, opening the door for special interests to hijack the process. If the current system is the best in the world:

Why keep it so secret?

PROBLEM: The current process discriminates against minorities. As former Representative Elbert Walton pointed out recently, there has never been an African American elected by the Missouri Bar to the lawyer-member slots on the Appellate Judicial Commission.

SOLUTION: We support the Missouri Plan because we believe it has a strong foundation of checks and balances. But over the years, through legislative changes or mere passing of time, politics and cronyism have diminished the Missouri Plan's ability to live up to the honorable goals of its drafters. It is time to improve the Missouri Plan. It is time for a New Missouri Plan. Let's have a debate over the real flaws and stop pretending the current process is perfect.

Better Courts for Missouri stood yesterday with a bipartisan group of legislators and lawyers to announce the filing of an initiative petition to improve the way Missouri's judges are selected.

See the summary of the initiative petition and the amendment language here.

This memo to Missouri Legislators describes the special interest backgrounds of some of the Appellate Judicial Commissioners. After reading the memo, you may begin to have doubts about the "non-partisan" nature of the judicial selection panel.

Read the memo here.

Better Courts for Missouri Coalition leaders express optimism as they achieve two important milestones in their effort to modernize the Missouri Plan for selecting judges.

Read the full press release here.